Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Lakota secession

The Lakota have seceded from the US. They've unilaterally withdrawn from the treaties signed in 1850 and 1868. From their statement:
Lakotah , and the population therein, have waited for at least 155 years for the United States of America to adhere to the provisions of the above referenced treaties. The continuing violations of these treaties’ terms have resulted in the near annihilation of our people physically, spiritually, and culturally.

This is big news, why does this feel like its being kept secret? FOX is the only "reputable" news source I've been able to find that will verify this story. There's nothing in the local papers or the NYTimes or Washington Post. The littlest Spears is bigger news. This blows my mind. The last time a section of the US seceded, there was a war. Are we trying to sweep this under the rug?

via Feministe

  • 1
I went and searched CNN for that and a few permutations. If they start getting a lot of hits on a subject they have software that alerts them. I don't know the details of the software, but I recall them using it in their page ranking formula. That's why when a tidal wave caused massive loss of life in those non-american countries it was buried below, yep, the Brittney news.

Sounds like smart software. Except for the Spears thing. Ick. They should just be banned from the news for a while.

I got here by clicking the wrong link, but I'm glad I did. I hadn't heard anything about this story, and now I've spent the last two hours of my life researching. Thanks.

USA Today's website did have an article about it, and it looks like it's been reported in local South Dakota media. But I think the main reason the story isn't as big as it seems it should be is that the activists who have declared independence on behalf of the Lakota are folks who don't actually have any official political power as far as the tribes are concerned. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader quotes one of the elected leaders of the Rosebud reservation as saying something to the effect of "We want no part of this, and they certainly did not consult with us before issuing this statement."

As something of an aside, my dad actually knows Russell Means. Russell even came up in conversation when I was there yesterday for Xmas, but there was no mention was made of this news story in the conversation, which leads me to believe either my dad hadn't heard about it yet, or he didn't think it was worth mentioning. My dad's opinion certainly isn't that important as these things go, but he does know an awful lot about Native American issues. I'll call him tomorrow and see what he thinks, and if you care I'll report back.

So anyway, thanks for the inadvertent heads-up, and it was nice to meet you by barging uninvited into your blog. :)

That's exactly what I was wondering about. This had all the feel of a stunt of some sort, and the media is so easily duped. I would love to hear any extra news you can find.

I finally got around to asking my dad about it, and his first response was, "Ha, yeah, I've never heard *this* before" with an eyeroll so big I could hear it on the phone.

He said this particular publicity stunt is a bit different in that they're saying they intend to ignore the treaties, and that they're making independent contact with some foreign governments (apparently the president of Bolivia is himself an indigenous person, so that's why Bolivia is specifically mentioned). But he said that reservations have in the past said they were going to print their own drivers licenses/license plates/etc, and have been smacked down by the courts.

In the end, his assessment was also that it's a publicity thing done by folks with no real decision-making power.

So with their "nation with in a nation" status, I'm not really sure it can be termed secession. All that binds the groups is a series of treaties...which if the US isn't following up on, can be ended. I say good for them...genocide, internment and the the continued subjugation and forced relocation should be proof enough that the treaties aren't being honored.

However looking into it I can't find any offical word from the tribal leaders nor do I find any record of a vote being held by either the leadership or the tribal members and the people listed don't appear to be "major" leaders with in the nation. So...who knows...could be a stunt, but might not be. Either way, you are right, there should be more attention. But if people went to a reservation for more then a casino or firework, or read about the continuing encroachment on tribal lands maybe they might understand why.

Yeah, I was looking for more data. This seems to be only taken seriously in the blog world, unless you count one article in the Argus Leader (out of Sioux Falls) and that mention in Fox and the USA today. I can't tell if it's real or not. And I certainly can't tell if these guys have thought the whole thing through - this would end all their federal aid. It's totally justified though. And interesting to think about.

they have been trying to do this since 1979. It was not until a resolution from the UN to recognize indigenous people of a country to up hold there rights did they decide to go forward with it.

It is very Shadowrun.

Ah, I was wondering what the catalyst was. Really interesting stuff though.

I had to look up Shadowrun, but I totally agree.

  • 1